[pkg-bacula-devel] Current status of merging development2 branch

[Alexander Golovko]

On Sat, 02 Jun 2012 12:43:16 +0200, Luca Capello wrote:
> Hi Alexander!
>
> On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 17:11:33 +0200, Alexander Golovko wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 May 2012 18:16:03 +0200, Luca Capello wrote:
>>> If we provide any symlink then we are oblige to announce that to 
>>> the
>>> users when they call /usr/bin/bconsole, which means adding another
>>> wrapper to output something like:
>>> =====
>>> $ bconsole
>>> WARNING: you called /usr/bin/bconsole.
>>>
>>> This was a Debian-specific hack and it will be removed once wheezy
>>> has
>>> been released.  Please use /usr/sbin/bconsole instead.
>>> =====
>>>
>>> Also given that /etc/bacula/bconsole.conf has ownership 
>>> root:bacula,
>>> simply having bconsole in /usr/bin/ does not mean that any user can
>>> start it.
>>>
>>> However, while checking where bat is installed I found out that it 
>>> is
>>> installed in /usr/bin/ as well, so either we move everything to
>>> /usr/sbin/ (and provide symlinks until post-wheezy) or we leave
>>> everything in /usr/bin/ (and remove /usr/sbin/bacula-console
>>> post-wheezy).  Upstream seems to install everything in /usr/sbin/,
>>> so I
>>> would follow upstream.
>>
>> I don't have any definitive answer yet, so will do as you say.
>
> Basically, if we follow upstream what we need is:
>
> 1) install everything as upstream
> 2) provide symlinks for the old locations
> 3) explain everything in NEWS.Debian
> 4) after wheezy, remove the symlinks
>
>>> On Wed, 30 May 2012 23:19:23 +0200, Alexander Golovko wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 30 May 2012 13:57:34 +0200, Luca Capello wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 27 May 2012 02:40:22 +0200, Alexander Golovko wrote:
>>>>>> * d77e917 Fix errors in man pages
>>>>>>     APPLIED
>>>>>
>>>>> This should be pushed upstream, I will do later on.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, i didn't do this, because manpages still contain errors. This
>>>> commit only fix lintian errors.
>>>
>>> OK, I will wait then ;-)
>>
>> fixed in c6de23f
>
> Thank you, should I forward upstream or have you already done it?  In
> this latter case, please also update the patch with the upstream bug
> number.

If it will not be difficult, forward it to upstream, please.

And Hauke patch "fix-example-script-syntax" too, please.


>
>>>> You are right partially.
>>>> Debian-like is not "conffiles", but safe process of package
>>>> updating.
>>>> Dpkg conffiles is only one of methods for solve config update
>>>> problem.
>>>> In our case ucf is much more better for this purpose.
>>>
>>> I see two advantages of dpkg-conffiles: first, you are prompted
>>> during
>>> upgrades and, second, they are listed in a central places, i.e.
>>> /var/lib/dpkg/info/dpkg.conffiles.  I know about ucf, but I have
>>> never
>>> played with it and I still think that this should have been
>>> implemented
>>> in dpkg, but this is another story ;-)
>>
>> ucf like dpkg prompt user, when it need update changed by user 
>> config
>> file.
>> ucf register managed files in /var/lib/dpkg/info/package.conffiles.
>
> Thank you for the explanation :-)
>
> Thx, bye,
> Gismo / Luca

-- 
with best regards,
Alexander Golovko
email: alexandro at ankalagon.ru
xmpp: alexandro at ankalagon.ru